http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/index.html


Pentagon: Rumsfeld misspoke on Flight 93 crash
Defense secretary's remark to troops fuels conspiracy theories

From Jamie McIntyre
CNN Washington


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comment Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made during a Christmas Eve address to U.S. troops in Baghdad has sparked new conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

In the speech, Rumsfeld made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers.

But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."

A Pentagon spokesman insisted that Rumsfeld simply misspoke, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down.

"Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy" asked a posting on the Web site WorldNetDaily.com.

Some people remain skeptical of U.S. government statements that, despite a presidential authorization, no planes were shot down September 11, and rumors still circulate that a U.S. military plane shot the airliner down over Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

A Pentagon spokesman insists Rumsfeld has not changed his opinion that the plane crashed as the result of an onboard struggle between passengers and terrorists.

The independent panel charged with investigating the terrorist attacks concluded that the hijackers intentionally crashed Flight 93, apparently because they feared the passengers would overwhelm them.


lets discuss this?

theres nothing to discuss, to me its obvious the plane was shot down, wreckage was strewn over a mile, suggesting a mid air explosion. I dont know why this is a problem to say the plane was shot down. By shooting down the plane the fighter pilot may have saved 1000s of lives. I think that makes him a hero, not some slaughterer of innocents. The people on those hijacked planes technically were already doomed. Its the kind of decision that military minds are prepared to make and just shows the resolve of our fighter pilots to get stuff done. That plane was shot down, they need to stop ending the lies.

Without looking at conspiracy theories I think we shot down the plane. There might have been a passenger upheaval against the terrorists, but it was hyped up to make it look like they took down the plane when there were pieces of it miles apart. I guess they had to try and hide the truth. Makes the passengers look like heroes and makes the government look a little better. They had to shoot it down. No choice. It was headed for Camp David.

The wife of one man on the plane was on a cell phone with him before the crash, he told her they were going to make a stand against the terrorists after hearing what became of the other flights.

Even if it was shot down, there wouldn't be any reason to hide it. It would have been justified.

Uh, no. http://www.mazdamaniac.com/images/smiles/icon_no2.gif

Besides the cockpit recordings, eyewitness accounts from the people in Ligonier that watched the plane go down and cell phone calls from the passengers, don't you think NORAD would have been proud to have managed to shoot the last one down?
They just never got scrambled fast enough.

Had the plane made it to DC, it would have likely gotten within range of the ANG guys, but they had no clear orders to take the planes down yet.
Cheney didn't manage to get those orders out until the last plane was already put-in.

A very good friend of mine was in an F15 flying over the Northeast that day and he has stated in casual converstions that there were no planes shot down on 9/11. He was circling over the White House within a few minutes time of the Pentagon attack. He also informed me that he can make it from Destin to Detroit in about 30 minutes without afterburners, now that's fast! He had worked at the Pentagon earlier in his career and is a very honest and open person, so I believe him. Would it make people feel better if the US spokesmen read from a piece of paper instead of actually answering questions from the hip? Or would they get more flack for not being genuine? Hopefully this doesn't turn into another, there was no plane found at the Pentagon, thread.

I'd be fine if it was shot down, but there are no statements and no evidence to make that case.

The wife of one man on the plane was on a cell phone with him before the crash, he told her they were going to make a stand against the terrorists after hearing what became of the other flights.

Even if it was shot down, there wouldn't be any reason to hide it. It would have been justified.

the only reason to hide it is if the pilot did not have orders to fire on the plane.

On a similar note, Arabs have been claiming that the jews setup 9/11 to make them look bad. I guess we should blame the jews for flight 93.

But why would the defense secretary slip on something that has dozens of conspiracy theories?

Again, this was an old issue so logic is a little fuzzy from 3 years ago. What accounts for the debris then?

On a similar note, Arabs have been claiming that the jews setup 9/11 to make them look bad. I guess we should blame the jews for flight 93.


My uncle said that on 9/12/01. He also tries to blame the jews for every problem anyone is having, hes an old fashioned boy from Baghdad.

Why do I sometimes have trouble thinking of descriptive words when having a small-talk conversation? Heck, I have even said some things that were completely wrong before!

On a similar note, Arabs have been claiming that the jews setup 9/11 to make them look bad. I guess we should blame the jews for flight 93.

We're not citizens of different countries here we are citizens of the US trying to discuss the truth. Uncomparable.

abbid, they all slip up and say weird things. It happens. You don't have to look far if you wanted examples from Bush. I'd say it would be stupid to try to read into the majority of the slipups, but if you're a conspiracy theorist (I think quack job is a better term), anything goes, even if it's not relevant.

theres nothing to discuss, to me its obvious the plane was shot down, wreckage was strewn over a mile, suggesting a mid air explosion.
First of all, have you ever seen an airliner that has been shot down? So how is it "obvious" to you?
Second, have you even been to the Shanksville site?

I have.

The wreckage wasn't strewn anywhere. The entire plane compacted into a 20'x30' slot in a hillside. If it weren't for the fire damage, you wouldn't even know a plane went down there. It hit the ground at a fairly high AOA and went straight in at over 400 knots.

Go to Pensylvania and stop runnning your mouth.

We're not citizens of different countries here we are citizens of the US trying to discuss the truth. Uncomparable.I hope you saw my sarcasm :)

A very good friend of mine was in an F15 flying over the Northeast that day and he has stated in casual converstions that there were no planes shot down on 9/11.

But would he reveal classified information. And would you relay that information to us?

I hope you saw my sarcasm :)

Sorry. Put a smiley bud ;)

Sorry. Put a smiley bud ;)It becomes too obvious then. I like a little tongue in cheek.

He also informed me that he can make it from Destin to Detroit in about 30 minutes without afterburners, now that's fast!

The F15C's maximum afterburner airspeed at 45k feet is 1875mph and thats not sustainable for that distance. Crusing velocity is 695mph. The F22 may have the capability to make that distance in 30 minutes.

Even if it were classified he would have known about it and he's not relaying that message to "us", just me and one other close friend. I'm sure his wife knows too if you'd like me to ask her for you. The point is that the information is not classified and there is nothing to support these theories other than nonsense and people that never see the sunlight.

We have no idea what happened up there. If they did take over the plane, wouldn't they be able to incapacitate the 6 hijackers figuring 150 to 6? And get the pilots back on the cockpit. Or surely there must be passengers with some flying experience. :confused:

I want to believe they took it down, but somethings not right.

First of all, have you ever seen an airliner that has been shot down? So how is it "obvious" to you?
Second, have you even been to the Shanksville site?

I have.

The wreckage wasn't strewn anywhere. The entire plane compacted into a 20'x30' slot in a hillside. If it weren't for the fire damage, you wouldn't even know a plane went down there. It hit the ground at a fairly high AOA and went straight in at over 400 knots.

Go to Pensylvania and stop runnning your mouth.


a 20 foot by 30 foot slot in a hill? Explain to me how wrecckage was found as far as 8 miles away then. how long after the crash did you get there?

overarchingly...again what is the problem with the plane being shot down? the people aboard are still heroes as well as the pilot who shot the plane down and therefore saved who knows how many would have been killed if that plane reached its target...why do some people not want to believe this. After the planes went down all aerial combat fighters received standing orders to shoot down airliners.

They were told to follow the remainder of the planes in flight but they were not told to shoot anything with wings. As for the pilots of flight 93, do you believe that they would have been left alive, and even then why would they be left unharmed when the passengers tried to reach the cockpit?

First of all, have you ever seen an airliner that has been shot down? So how is it "obvious" to you?
Second, have you even been to the Shanksville site?

I have.

The wreckage wasn't strewn anywhere. The entire plane compacted into a 20'x30' slot in a hillside. If it weren't for the fire damage, you wouldn't even know a plane went down there. It hit the ground at a fairly high AOA and went straight in at over 400 knots.

Go to Pensylvania and stop runnning your mouth.

Why so defensive? I was 10 mins away from the wtc site and saw it a couple days after doesn't make me an expert. I'm not saying you have to qualify yourself but what would going to pennsylvania 3 years after the fact have anything to do with now?

They were told to follow the remainder of the planes in flight but they were not told to shoot anything with wings. As for the pilots of flight 93, do you believe that they would have been left alive, and even then why would they be left unharmed when the passengers tried to reach the cockpit?

They had paper cutters not machetes or sub-machine guns.

If the hijackers found themselves in a situation where they were going to lose control, I could easily see them make the plane nose dive. How fast can you move when the plane is flying at full speed into the ground?

They had box cutters, which is essentially a razor blade with an easy to grip handle. This would be perfect for catching someone off guard from behind. And even though they may not be considered extrememly dangerous, I have seen them cut through things much stronger than the human neck.

I think its just someone's theory dream and another attempt to discredit Rummy. Hey, the guy slipped in speaking. He's an old guy and not a 100% perfect perfume salesman. He's human. Actually, think about this, suppose you were a combat jet pilot. The decision to fire at an airliner with Ameicans on board would have been extremely tough to initiate. They were in Pa and not DC so there would have been plenty of time to shoot it down but I think the fighter pilots would have first ordered the plane to head for the nearest airport before shooting it down. Had a pilot actually shot down the plane that thought would haunt him for years and eventually his story would have gotten out by now. There's just not much to go on with facts to justify the plane was shot down. We certainly should not go by Rummy's speech slip. I think the terrorist pilots turned the plane upside down as soon as some or one passenger entered the cockpit or was about to. That's the true story and so many folks will come up with all sorts of theories to either gain national attention or just to cause a fuss.

They had box cutters, which is essentially a razor blade with an easy to grip handle. This would be perfect for catching someone off guard from behind. And even though they may not be considered extrememly dangerous, I have seen them cut through things much stronger than the human neck.

NO doubt. This is presuming the pilots were killed immediately.

I like Rumsfeld. Definately can't blame him for mistakes but his mistake was way off the mark. Granted the man has a lot on his mind and stressed out this was big because they were so firm in the hijackers taking down the plane and no one shooting it down. Oops! Get some sleep Rumsfeld.

I admire some of what Rumsfeld's trying to do with revamping the military, but I think he should be out of a job for all the mistakes & misjudgements. That being said, I think he simply misspoke and I don't buy the coverup theories. If we did get one plane down, it would be the only success of the day. The picture for US air defenses was chaotic, and no individual pilot had enough info to pop off a jetliner of his own accord. Keeping people out of the cockpit would be easy; in a dive, everyone in the doorway would be on the ceiling, heading to the tail muy rapido.

According to Attas' recovered plans, flight 93's target was the White House. Secondary target was the Capitol.

According to the FBI, after reviewing all the data from the recorder and everything, they felt that the terrorists decided to take the plane down immediately, because they were afraid the passengers would be able to retake the aircaft and possibly survive.


Pilots were told they had the authority to shoot down any plane that had been hijacked, but the rules of engagement had not yet been completed. The air bases who were first able to launch planes were too far away, and local airbases, like langley, took too long to get anything into the air. You should read Richard Clarke's book. He gives an incredible account of what it was like on the inside at the time. My favorite detail was how lynn cheney kept changing the monitor from the heads' teleconference to CNN.

I admire some of what Rumsfeld's trying to do with revamping the military, but I think he should be out of a job for all the mistakes & misjudgements. That being said, I think he simply misspoke and I don't buy the coverup theories. If we did get one plane down, it would be the only success of the day. The picture for US air defenses was chaotic, and no individual pilot had enough info to pop off a jetliner of his own accord. Keeping people out of the cockpit would be easy; in a dive, everyone in the doorway would be on the ceiling, heading to the tail muy rapido.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Let's see if Oliver Stone uses this as movie fodder, however.

Oliver Stone was in my unit in Vietnam only he was in company B a year before I got there. I don't think too much of the guy as he listens to what Hollywood wants us to see rather than truth.

does anyone remember the movie, "executive decision?" i watched it the other day and it gave me chills. this is not the first time i've seen this movie, but it has the same effect on me every time. i believe this movie came out in '96......eerily close to reality just 5 years later.

yamajj

Isn't he retarded or something? :confused:

I never saw any account of any debris except at the crash site...

Let's think about the eye witnesses on the ground... None of them saw a missile or an explosion...

Some people are just looking over thier shoulder for the gov't all the time... The Gov't has to be up to something.... LOL..

BTW -- I say things wrong like that all the time.. Doesn't mean it happened.. And the reason there happens to be be conspiracy theories about it is because there are conspiracy thoeries about everything!!!

The crash into the Pentagon seems better fodder for conspiracy theorists and the like.

Oliver Stone was in my unit in Vietnam only he was in company B a year before I got there. I don't think too much of the guy as he listens to what Hollywood wants us to see rather than truth.

I don't think much of Stone, either, for the reason you noted and simply because his filmmaking technique to me consists of stocking his films with vacuous mouthpiece characters and employing technical tricks that masquerade as poetry. His offices are right down the street from me in Santa Monica, and I've seen him around town quite often. I may be the only one here on the board who has stood next to him at a urinal--and, no, I won't reveal the results (or make comparisons). :D

theres nothing to discuss, to me its obvious the plane was shot down, wreckage was strewn over a mile, suggesting a mid air explosion. I dont know why this is a problem to say the plane was shot down. By shooting down the plane the fighter pilot may have saved 1000s of lives. I think that makes him a hero, not some slaughterer of innocents. The people on those hijacked planes technically were already doomed. Its the kind of decision that military minds are prepared to make and just shows the resolve of our fighter pilots to get stuff done. That plane was shot down, they need to stop ending the lies.
*Yawn* Ah, more conspiracy drivel.

FYI, shooting down an airliner at altitude would leave a debris footprint over a dozen square miles (or more). No such footprint, ergo... :D

One thing most people don't know is that all of the military aircraft we launched from Langley were not armed.. By the time we had armed aircraft up there it was WAY too late...

I never saw any account of any debris except at the crash site...

Let's think about the eye witnesses on the ground... None of them saw a missile or an explosion...

Some people are just looking over thier shoulder for the gov't all the time... The Gov't has to be up to something.... LOL..

BTW -- I say things wrong like that all the time.. Doesn't mean it happened.. And the reason there happens to be be conspiracy theories about it is because there are conspiracy thoeries about everything!!!

The reason there are conspiracy theories is that there is a ready supply of nimrods ready to buy any book that sounds interesting. "Hey, I have seeecret knowledge that there's a seeecret government thingy in a seeecret location. And for the low, low price of 19.95, YOU'LL have the seeecret too!"

Suckers :D

Maybe its just me or are some people just plain dumb? To me what that means is that the people on the plane already knew what was going to happen, so in a slight metaphor Secretary Donald Rumsfeld meant the passengers "shot down the plane". I don't see what the big deal is. :confused: And guess what its sad to say but even if we did shoot it down, it would have been the best thing to do. Like the hijackers were going to give up at that point! The plane was going down either way. Either we shoot it down or the plane brings itself down some how. And if one of those two options weren't taken, the plane was going into another building killing more people innocent people than it already did in the crash.

Paul in DC makes a very good point as well. The plane would have been spread over a very large area.

Oliver Stone was in my unit in Vietnam only he was in company B a year before I got there. I don't think too much of the guy as he listens to what Hollywood wants us to see rather than truth.

Dude, he is Hollywood. or at least the part of it that everybody loves to hate.

I dunno maybe it was shot down. Maybe Rummy misspoke. Maybe both. Either way, the man's losing it. He's made so many other mistakes, from small ones like confusing Saddam and Osama, to big ones like Abu Grahib. Maybe it's the stress, maybe he's just getting old. I just think it's time for him to take a long, long vacation.

One thing most people don't know is that all of the military aircraft we launched from Langley were not armed.. By the time we had armed aircraft up there it was WAY too late...

If I recall, on that particular day we had only 9 combat ready aircraft to cover the entire country.

An aircraft can shed a lot of parts when overstressed. If there were pieces shrewn over miles, whoever was at the controls could have pulled the wings off of that plane if they didn't know what they were doing.

That's quite a slip-up. Ever been caught lying? It's usually when the truth unintentionally slips out and someone says ,"Hey, didn't you say something else last time?" and you're left stammering ?

I don't think the hijackers crashed the plane intentionally so to speak. Also, I don't think the military or anyone else shot the plane down.

First, there's to much evidence outside of the main crash site to believe that the plane didn't experience some sort of mid air accident. Debris found miles away from the crash site. A 1000LB turbine fan found over a mile from the site. Human remains found 8 miles away. Where did all of this come from?

Second, with all that went wrong and all the fear that we all experienced that day, if they had accomplished to take out an aircraft that was going to do more damage, I think they would have said so to let us know that they do in fact know what they are doing. To go from a totaly unprepaired state, or as close to it as possible, to full battle ready and shoot down a plane hundreds of miles away in less than an hour is pretty impressive.

I believe that the passengers did get into the cockpit and I do think that there was a struggle for the controls. What I think happened is that one of the hijackers had a bomb and detonated it. I remember reading that the passengers reported that one man had something strapped around his waist that he declaired as a bomb.

What if he really did have one? It would probably cause a small explosion, probably in front of the wings, near the cockpit. It would blow a hole in the upper side of the airplane in the passenger compartment/cockpit. That is how there got to be burnt plastic, seat cushion material, some paper and human remains 8 miles away. Next the plane would start to fall apart. The tearing of the skin would eventually get to the baggage compartment, hense the other debris found 1 1/4 mile away. At this point the plane would be impossible to fly, a good pilot would be lucky to even land the damn thing, let alone a pilot who only learned to crash it, or a passenger(assuming that a pilot didn't survive the explosion and try to take the controls). Then just before crashing, the engine, damaged by all of the debris flying out of the plane would simply come apart and drop a fan about a mile away.

It's pretty simple really. I'm suprised that there hasn't been any thought of this anywhere else.....well none that I've read.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it :).

Cel

I don't think that it was shot down, but the Pentagon thing... I'm sorry but there was no plane involved there my friends.

SHOWOFF, I'm sure you have evidence there was never a moon landing, right?

I don't think the hijackers crashed the plane intentionally so to speak. Also, I don't think the military or anyone else shot the plane down.

First, there's to much evidence outside of the main crash site to believe that the plane didn't experience some sort of mid air accident. Debris found miles away from the crash site. A 1000LB turbine fan found over a mile from the site. Human remains found 8 miles away. Where did all of this come from?

Second, with all that went wrong and all the fear that we all experienced that day, if they had accomplished to take out an aircraft that was going to do more damage, I think they would have said so to let us know that they do in fact know what they are doing. To go from a totaly unprepaired state, or as close to it as possible, to full battle ready and shoot down a plane hundreds of miles away in less than an hour is pretty impressive.

I believe that the passengers did get into the cockpit and I do think that there was a struggle for the controls. What I think happened is that one of the hijackers had a bomb and detonated it. I remember reading that the passengers reported that one man had something strapped around his waist that he declaired as a bomb.

What if he really did have one? It would probably cause a small explosion, probably in front of the wings, near the cockpit. It would blow a hole in the upper side of the airplane in the passenger compartment/cockpit. That is how there got to be burnt plastic, seat cushion material, some paper and human remains 8 miles away. Next the plane would start to fall apart. The tearing of the skin would eventually get to the baggage compartment, hense the other debris found 1 1/4 mile away. At this point the plane would be impossible to fly, a good pilot would be lucky to even land the damn thing, let alone a pilot who only learned to crash it, or a passenger(assuming that a pilot didn't survive the explosion and try to take the controls). Then just before crashing, the engine, damaged by all of the debris flying out of the plane would simply come apart and drop a fan about a mile away.

It's pretty simple really. I'm suprised that there hasn't been any thought of this anywhere else.....well none that I've read.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it :).

Cel

I was just going off memory so I didn't know this other information. You've sold me on it. But still, why can't we have the truth?

http://img69.exs.cx/img69/4787/cnnpoll5fa.jpg

Maybe hes dumb like Bush, Bush said so many ridiculous things.

MentalPimp, the left was sending out to mailing lists websites with polls that they wanted their users to vote on in mass in order to skew the polls and "make themselves heard". All that does is render the poll useless. As we saw, there were more republican votes than democrats, so any poll that has a 80-99% anti-bush vote will naturally be inaccurate.

MentalPimp, the left was sending out to mailing lists websites with polls that they wanted their users to vote on in mass in order to skew the polls and "make themselves heard". All that does is render the poll useless. As we saw, there were more republican votes than democrats, so any poll that has a 80-99% anti-bush vote will naturally be inaccurate.


would an 80-99% pro-bush vote be accurate? the rights got its mailing lists and blogs too, you've quoted them many times.



im just keeping it real thats all.

I don't think that it was shot down, but the Pentagon thing... I'm sorry but there was no plane involved there my friends.
I don't know where you got that tale, but it's bogus. I have friends who watched the airliner approach and crash into the Pentagon.

would an 80-99% pro-bush vote be accurate? the rights got its mailing lists and blogs too, you've quoted them many times.

im just keeping it real thats all.You're not keeping it real when you say things like that. There wasn't a massive push from the right to skew the polls. There was nothing from the RNC that asked people to vote on online polls, and listed the sites that had polls, as the DNC mailing lists did - repeatedly. Then you can add in all the left sites, like democraticunderground that also urged it's members to skew the polls.

We're not talking about one small blog urging it's members to screw up a poll, we're talking about several thousands individuals, enough to render all the major news websites polls invalid. So keep trying to keep it real - you need the practice :P

Jason has a point though.

I don't think that it was shot down, but the Pentagon thing... I'm sorry but there was no plane involved there my friends.

Huh? :confused:

I don't know where you got that tale, but it's bogus. I have friends who watched the airliner approach and crash into the Pentagon.

I have looked at those photos and the limited video that is available and it is so amazing that there are no remains of a plane. This is the aspect of 9/11 that bothers me the most. It seems unresolved. There are allegedly eyewitness who say a commuter aircraft. In fact those were the first reports that came out that a commuter aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. The damage just seems very limited given the size and velocity of what supposedly hit the Pentagon.

I have looked at those photos and the limited video that is available and it is so amazing that there are no remains of a plane. This is the aspect of 9/11 that bothers me the most. It seems unresolved. There are allegedly eyewitness who say a commuter aircraft. In fact those were the first reports that came out that a commuter aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. The damage just seems very limited given the size and velocity of what supposedly hit the Pentagon.

The damage may have appeared limited in the visuals that are available, but it wasn't considering that the plane basically disintegrated upon impact. Video and film footage can be deceiving and frames only what the camera sees at the moment. I have two close friends who were then Air Force officers who were at the Pentagon that day. They can certainly confirm that it was no simple explosive charge. And how would one explain the sudden disappearance of the passengers and crew, which included Barbara Olsen, the broadcaster wife of the (then) solicitor general of the U.S., Ted Olsen, who called him twice from the plane during the hijacking? There was no ad hoc cover-up here. Questions, yes, plenty from all of us, but that plane hit the Pentagon. Period.

Foxman: Some folks will never believe anything about those planes. They doubt just about everything. There wasn't much a hole when two planes went into those towers in NY and there wasn't much of a mark in the ground when the plane hit down in Pa either. So some folks believe there never were any planes involved. These are the same ones who might think the towers in NY were never there to start with. Then they think, well they must have been because I seen them in pics and in books. Then, maybe there were just fabricated pics and books. Those were real planes that flew into those places. I guess two thousand years from now many folks will determine the events never happened. Its all false. They will ask, show me the proof, prove it. Oh that's just what people believed back then. There's no proof anymore so it never happened. HS and some college students are saying the same thing about the Holocost. It never happened, it was just a fabrication in someone's mind or several minds. Its all a lie. They'll say stupid stuff like that. I bet ya if any on-board video cam was on the front nose of one or two of the aircraft folks still would not believe it. They would say it was doctored to look like a crash. The people that were in those planes are living in secret in the world somewhere. Everytime we have a crisis, an event there are always people who tell themselves it never happened, we are being duped and so forth. Man! I just don't know what to say to folks like that.

Foxman: Some folks will never believe anything about those planes. They doubt just about everything. There wasn't much a hole when two planes went into those towers in NY and there wasn't much of a mark in the ground when the plane hit down in Pa either. So some folks believe there never were any planes involved. These are the same ones who might think the towers in NY were never there to start with. Then they think, well they must have been because I seen them in pics and in books. Then, maybe there were just fabricated pics and books. Those were real planes that flew into those places. I guess two thousand years from now many folks will determine the events never happened. Its all false. They will ask, show me the proof, prove it. Oh that's just what people believed back then. There's no proof anymore so it never happened. HS and some college students are saying the same thing about the Holocost. It never happened, it was just a fabrication in someone's mind or several minds. Its all a lie. They'll say stupid stuff like that. I bet ya if any on-board video cam was on the front nose of one or two of the aircraft folks still would not believe it. They would say it was doctored to look like a crash. The people that were in those planes are living in secret in the world somewhere. Everytime we have a crisis, an event there are always people who tell themselves it never happened, we are being duped and so forth. Man! I just don't know what to say to folks like that.

Tayninh, similar to what we were chatting about a few days ago, I suspect that an Oliver Stone movie about 9/11 would use your points as plot devices. :D Either way, you're right. I question all kinds of things, but not empirical evidence of an event.